The People of the State of New York, Plaintiff, v. Sylvester White, Defendant. (2026)

The defense moves for an order declaring the People's certificate of compliance (COC) invalid and dismissing the case pursuant to CPL § 30.30 (1) (b) and CPL § 170.30 (1) (e). Specifically, the defense argues that the People failed to comply with their discovery obligations before filing their COC in that they failed to disclose a 911 call, a radio run, and records from the Administration for Children's Services (ACS). The People oppose, arguing that the defendant's motion is procedurally barred under CPL § 245.50 (4) (c), that the ACS records are not part of their initial discovery obligations, and that regardless of any discovery defects, they exercised due diligence prior to filing their COC.

The court decides the motion as follows.

I. Relevant Facts & Procedural History

The defendant is charged with PL §§ 120.00, 121.11 (a), and 260.10 for allegedly strangling and striking the complainant in the presence of their child on March 15, 2026. That day, the complainant called 911, and police responded and arrested the defendant.

On March 16, 2026, the defendant was arraigned on a criminal complaint. The case was adjourned to May 5, 2026, for conversion of the complaint.

On May 5, 2026, the People filed and served a Domestic Incident Report (DIR) to convert the complaint to an information, and the case was adjourned to June 15, 2026, for trial.

On June 12, 2026, the People filed and served a COC and certificate of readiness (COR). The COC stated that the People had not produced 911 calls or radio runs because they were not in the People's possession despite the exercise of due diligence.

On June 15, 2026, the People answered ready for trial. The defense stated that they had not yet reviewed the discovery, and the case was adjourned to August 12, 2026, for trial.

On July 7, 2026, the defense sent a conferral email inquiring what steps, if any, the People had taken to obtain ACS records. The People replied that they had not requested the records prior to filing their COC but were now taking efforts to obtain them.

On July 17, 2026, the defense filed the instant motion. The People filed their opposition on September 2, 2026, and the defense filed a reply on September 17, 2026.

II. COC Challenge

On a motion challenging a COC, this court will first determine whether the movant has complied with the procedural requirements of CPL § 245.50 (4) (see People v Minor, 2026 NY Slip Op. 50255[U] [Crim Ct, NY County 2026]). Next, the court will examine the alleged discovery violations individually (People v Lodgson-McCray, 88 Misc 3d 1212[A] [Crim Ct, NY County 2026]). Finally, the court will examine any violations in the context of "the totality of the [People's] efforts to comply with the provisions of [Article 245]" and determine whether the People nevertheless "exercised due diligence and acted in good faith" in discharging their duties (CPL 245.50 [5], [6]; see also People v Bay, 41 NY3d 200, 211 [2023]).

The defense's conferral efforts were sufficient. The court does not perceive any basis to question defense counsel's good faith (see People v G.Y., 89 Misc 3d 1204(A), *3 [Crim Ct, NY County 2026]). While the defense did not confer about the outstanding 911 call and radio run, this court has previously held that waiver is not appropriate "in the case of undisputedly discoverable materials listed as outstanding in the People's COC" (id., *4).

Turning to the merits, the ACS records were not within the People's actual or constructive possession, and they were therefore not part of the People's initial discovery obligation (People v Haggan, 253 NYS3d 154 [1st Dept 2026]). The Appellate Division, First Department, has specifically held that "for purposes of discovery, [ACS] is not a law enforcement agency" (People v Musah, 249 AD3d 475, 476 [1st Dept 2026]). Therefore, ACS records are not constructively in the People's possession under CPL § 245.20 (2) (see id. [citing People v Arroyo, 78 Misc 3d 1239[A] [Crim Ct, Kings County 2023]).

However, the 911 call and radio run are discoverable (CPL 245.20 [1] [e], [g]), and the materials were constructively within the People's possession when they filed their COC (see CPL 245.20 [2]). Knowing that the NYPD is currently taking months to respond to requests for 911 and radio run recordings, the People should have requested these materials sooner, especially given their potential importance in a domestic violence case in which the complaining witness is not cooperating with the prosecution. The People have not claimed that they requested expedited production of the recordings, nor have they explained why they could not have done so. However, the court considers the delay to be mitigated by the fact that the People requested the materials twice before filing their COC, first on May 4, 2026, and again on June 4, 2026. The primary fault for the delay lies with NYPD. Upon receiving the materials, they produced them to the defense immediately.

Considering "the totality of the [People's] efforts to comply with the provisions of [Article 245]" and weighing all relevant factors (CPL 245.50 [5]), the court finds that the People "exercised due diligence and acted in good faith in making reasonable inquiries and efforts to obtain and provide" discoverable materials (CPL 245.50 [6]; see also People v Bay, 41 NY3d 200, 211 [2023]). The People made significant and prompt efforts to obtain and produce discovery. The 911 call and radio run recordings are undoubtedly important pieces of discovery, but the amount of belated discovery here was minimal compared to the volume of discovery actually produced. The People should have requested the 911s and radio runs sooner, and they should have requested expedited production, but the ultimate fault for the delay is not with the People. Rather, it is with the NYPD. The lapse has now been remedied, and there is no reason to believe that delayed production will have any ongoing effect on the defense's ability to prepare for trial.

The People's COC is therefore valid, and the motion challenging the COC is DENIED.

III. Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to CPL § 30.30

In this case, in which the defendant is charged with an A misdemeanor and no felonies, the People must be ready for trial within 90 days of the commencement of the criminal action (CPL 30.30 [1] [b]). The parties agree that the People must be charged 88 days from the defendant's arraignment on March 16, 2026, through the filing of the People's COC and COR on June 12, 2026. No additional time is chargeable. The People's COR was valid, and no delay has been attributable to them since that date.

Because the People are charged with only 88 days, they have not exceeded their 90-day limit, and the defendant's motion to dismiss is therefore DENIED.

This constitutes the decision and order of this court.

Dated: October 1, 2026

New York, NY

Ilona B. Coleman, J.C.C.

Ilona B. Coleman, J.